You are here: / / NEW YORK DOES NOT HAVE GENERAL OR LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER A UK CORPORATION...
, ,

NEW YORK DOES NOT HAVE GENERAL OR LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER A UK CORPORATION WHICH ALLEGEDLY MANUFACTURED A DEFECTIVE PART OF AN EXCAVATOR (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Miller defendants, a UK corporation, were not amenable to general or long-arm jurisdiction in New York. Plaintiff alleged a part (a coupler) made by Miller failed causing an excavator bucket to detach and fall:

General jurisdiction exists over a corporate entity only in the state(s) in which it is incorporated and has its principal place of business … . * * *

Defendants have also failed to establish specific jurisdiction over the Miller parties pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(1), CPLR 302 (a)(3)(i) or CPLR 302 (a)(3)(ii). Although the Miller parties might have placed the coupler involved in plaintiff’s accident into the stream of commerce, and while they tout having a global customer base and business model, the Supreme Court of the United States has made clear that “the ‘fortuitous circumstance’ that a product sold in another state later makes its way into the forum jurisdiction through no marketing or other effort of [the] defendant,” or “‘the mere likelihood that a product will find its way into the forum[,]’ cannot establish the requisite connection between [the] defendant and the forum” to support an exercise of specific personal jurisdiction … . Cruz v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 06546, First Dept 11-17-22

Practice Point: The ‘fortuitous circumstance’ that a product sold in another state later makes its way into the forum jurisdiction through no marketing or other effort of [the] defendant,” or “‘the mere likelihood that a product will find its way into the forum[,]’ cannot establish the requisite connection between [the] defendant and the forum” to support an exercise of specific personal jurisdiction. Here New York did not have general or long-arm jurisdiction over a UK corporation which manufactured a part on an excavator which allegedly failed causing the excavator bucket to detach.

 

You might also like
VIDEOTAPED INTERVIEWS OF RESPONDENT FATHER’S CHILDREN LED TO CRIMINAL SEXUAL ABUSE CHARGES AGAINST FATHER WHICH WERE DISMISSED BECAUSE OF A LACK OF WITNESS COOPERATION; THE VIDEOTAPED INTERVIEWS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE SEALING REQUIREMENT IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW AND CAN BE USED IN A FAMILY COURT PROCEEDING ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE BY FATHER (FIRST DEPT).
THE CERTIFICATION OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE THE DECEDENT EXECUTED THE CONTRACT, BUT THAT EVIDENCE CREATES ONLY A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION; PLAINTIFF PRESENTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DECEDENT SIGNED THE AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT).
STEP WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ACTIONABLE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS BUS-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE, EVEN IF THE CROSSING LIGHT CHANGED WHILE PLAINTIFF WAS CROSSING HE WAS ENTITLED TO PROCEED (FIRST DEPT).
MISREPRESENTATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST BEAR STEARNS RE COLLATERALIZED DEBT OBLIGATIONS AND RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO WARRANT DENIAL OF MOTHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY, A HEARSAY LETTER FROM THE NYS OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES CHILD ABUSE AND MALTREATMENT REGISTER, FINDING CERTAIN ALLEGATIONS AGAINST FATHER TO BE UNFOUNDED, WAS INSUFFICIENT (FIRST DEPT). ​
PETITIONER, WHO IS NOT RELATED TO THE CHILD, DID NOT HAVE STANDING BY EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL TO SEEK CUSTODY OR VISITATION; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).
CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE APPLIED TO AN ENGINEERING FIRM HIRED TO OVERSEE AN HVAC INSTALLATION PROJECT; THE THREE-YEAR NEGLIGENCE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TOLLED BY THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE AND THE ACTION WAS TIMELY (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE SUPPORT POLE FOR THE SIDEWALK TENT... DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYER (TOMS) WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE ACTS OF DEFENDANT EMPLOYEE...